By Jason Sattler

CBO Director Explains Why The GOP’s Latest Anti-Obamacare Talking Point Is Bunk

February 4, 2014 4:17 pm Category: Memo Pad, Politics 91 Comments A+ / A-
CBO Director Explains Why The GOP’s Latest Anti-Obamacare Talking Point Is Bunk

Republicans have seized on a few sentences in a new Congressional Budget Office report that says that while the labor force will continue to grow over the next decade, there will be a reduction in the hours worked because of Obamacare:

The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024. 

This instantly became a screaming headline for the right that Obamacare kills jobs, which earned three Pinocchios from The Washington Post‘s fact checker, Glenn Kessler. Jobs will not be lost, but “some people might decide to work part-time, not full time, in order to keep getting health care subsidies. Thus, they are reducing their supply of labor to the market.”

In other words, people will be able to work less without the fear of losing their health insurance, which is fantastic. Mothers and fathers will choose to stay home with their kids and workers will have the freedom to start businesses and seek educational opportunities.

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf explained why this is actually a good thing while testifying before Congress:

BfvAi2rIMAAPOED

 

He also noted the health law will actually reduce the unemployment rate.

“Obamacare alters the employer-employee relationship in a way that empowers employees,” Business Insider‘s Josh Barro wrote, explaining how the law will help decrease income inequality.

Meanwhile, the other news in the report contradicts nearly every talking point Republicans have used against the law. Not only does it decrease the deficit, the CBO found that “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.”

And though the number of enrollments predicted for this year has been reduced by 1 million due to the flawed rollout, the numbers for the next few years are impressive.

“The ACA will increase the number of Americans with health insurance by 13 million this year, 20 million next year, and 25 million a year from then through 2024,” The Los Angeles Times‘ Michael Hiltzik wrote. “Some 80 percent of those enrollees will be receiving federal subsidies to keep their coverage affordable.”

Although this new anti-Obamacare talking point has already been struck down, that only makes it stronger with Republicans.

If increasing the workforce is the party’s goal, let’s just get rid of Social Security and Medicare so grandma stops lounging around and gets a job.

Or if they really wanted to grow the workforce, Republicans could pass the Senate’s immigration bill. The CBO predicts that this one piece of legislation would cut the deficit, grow wages and increase the labor force by 6 million in the next decade.

(h/t on Elmendorf’s testimony to @BrianBeutler)

AFP Photo/Karen Bleier

 

CBO Director Explains Why The GOP’s Latest Anti-Obamacare Talking Point Is Bunk Reviewed by on . Republicans have seized on a few sentences in a new Congressional Budget Office report that says that while the labor force will continue to grow over the next Republicans have seized on a few sentences in a new Congressional Budget Office report that says that while the labor force will continue to grow over the next Rating: 0

More by Jason Sattler

5 Ways Republicans Could Still Lose The House

This should be the Republicans’ year. Democrats need to defend 20 U.S. Senate seats, seven of which are in states Mitt Romney won, even as he lost to President Obama by nearly 5 million votes. The GOP only needs to win six of those seats to take control of the upper house of Congress. In 2012,

Read more...

Rand Paul Can Try To Be His Party’s Bill Clinton, But He’ll Never Be President

This post originally appeared at Eclectablog.com. Rand Paul continues to fling any turd he can find at the Clintons for pretty obvious reasons. The first-term senator from Kentucky has to do something to show the GOP establishment he can be competitive in a general election, and he’s trying to keep the former president out of

Read more...

5 Reasons It’s Time For The GOP To Dump Sarah Palin And The Tea Party

Conservative columnist Matt Lewis seems relieved. “We may have finally reached a tipping point: Conservatives, it seems, are finally safe to criticize Sarah Palin (without fear of being written out of the movement, that is),” he wrote on Tuesday. A flurry of criticism from the right has swarmed around the one-time Republican nominee for vice

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • gmccpa

    I just watched Rand Paul on CNN spouting off how ‘we told you so’..because one million people are leaving the work force because they no longer need to be employed to have health insurance.

    And as usual, in the TB/Repub mindset….this means the ACA is reducing the workforce. Of course, you would have to be brain dead to interpret it that way. Because if one million people are leaving jobs because they don’t need them….this actually OPENS up jobs. And one would think CNN could actually mention this. Liberal media, my ass.

    • daniel bostdorf

      Zucker has driven any credibility of CNN into the dung pile. Larry …King states it best when is said they should give and run cartoons…they would make more money.

      ““CNN’s got problems,” he said. “I don’t know what they’re going to do.”“Cartoons” he joked as advice for CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker. “Put ‘Spongebob’ on CNN— 24 hours— until a big story breaks. Then we break into ‘Spongebob,’ and go to the hurricane, and then back to Spongebob.’””

      more here

      http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/larry-king-cnns-got-problems_b211834

      • sigrid28

        But coverage of the hurricane has to wait until Anderson Cooper in his windbreaker arrives to cover it.

    • Dominick Vila

      I wonder if my decision to retire 12 years ago was influenced by the knowledge that Obamacare would someday in the future become reality?
      In any case, thanks to the GOP, I now know that the driving force to retire or change jobs is influenced strictly by Obamacare.
      BTW, ABC is not much better than CNN…so much for the “liberal” media.

      • jointerjohn

        I watched CBS News this morning and they are hawking the same crap. They made special reference to 60+ age workers retiring early because they no longer had to wait until medicare eligibility to be covered by health insurance. The dumb clucks said it as though the jobs they were vacating somehow vanished from the employment market. In truth, reducing medicare eligibility from age 65 to 62 would reduce the national unemployment level by a full 2%. Many my age are working just for the insurance.

        • Barbara Morgan

          You have to be 66 now to try your full Social Security and in a few more years it will be 67. Seems some in government want to keep working until just before they die so SS won’t pay out to much money for them.

          • daniel bostdorf

            Social Security was created at the moment President Roosevelt inked his signature on the Social Security Act on August 14, 1935 at 3:30 p.m.

            Life expectancy i 1935 was 59.9 for men and 63.9 for women.

            Life expectancy is now 76.2 for men and 81.1 for women.

            The government is adjusting the age for collecting FULL benefits at 66 and it will go up as American workers live longer and can work full time longer. That helps the economy by keeping tem as tax payers.

            If someone wants to take early retirement, then that is their choice.

            Full retirement age is the age at which a person may first become entitled to full or unreduced retirement benefits.

            No matter what your full retirement age (also called “normal
            retirement age”) is, you may start receiving benefits as early as age 62
            or as late as age 70.

            If You Retire Early

            You can retire at any time between age 62 and full retirement age. However, if you start benefits early, your benefits are reduced a fraction of a percent for each month before your full retirement age.

            read more about retirement from the official website:

            http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

          • Andy Kinnard

            That’s all well and good, but it does not address how that impacts the job market. Raising the retirement age for SS purposes doesn’t change the reality that employers expect you to retire at or before 65. Nor does it do anything to offset the loss of available jobs to younger folks if those between 65 and 67 choose to continue working until 67.

          • daniel bostdorf

            my intent was statisticcs only—I had no obligation to address this: “…but it does not address how that impacts the job market.”

            And if you could, please rsearch and then cite me the website where you get this opinion from? It would help to understand what it is your are specifically talking about…..just give me factual statistics where you get this “impact” from…that is all…

            Here is what I responded to SOLELY from Barbara Morgan….not a didactic discussion of overall impacts…this issue of “impact” is another topic for National Memo—not here with the topic of GOP’s latest anti-obama talking points…

            My response:
            “Social Security was created at the moment President Roosevelt inked his signature on the Social Security Act on August 14, 1935 at 3:30 p.m.

            Life expectancy in 1935 was 59.9 for men and 63.9 for women.

            Life expectancy is now 76.2 for men and 81.1 for women.

            The government is adjusting the age for collecting FULL benefits at 66 and it will go up as American workers live longer and can work full time longer. That helps the economy by keeping them as tax payers.

            If someone wants to take early retirement, then that is their choice.

            Full retirement age is the age at which a person may first become entitled to full or unreduced retirement benefits.

            No matter what your full retirement age (also called “normal retirement age”) is, you may start receiving benefits as early as age 62 or as late as age 70.

            If You Retire Early

            You can retire at any time between age 62 and full retirement age. However, if you start benefits early, your benefits are reduced a fraction of a percent for each month before your full retirement age.

            read more about retirement from the official website:

            http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

          • Andy Kinnard

            I cannot tell what, at all, you are getting at, but two things jump out: First, this is a public forum; so, any desire to debate ONLY with one person is futile and counter to the purpose of open commenting. Second, it is irresponsible to consider the facts and stats and reasoning offered for raising SS retirement age (which, I agree has to be done) without considering their impacts on the job market and larger economy. Why are you trying to hard to restrict the scope of discussion?

          • daniel bostdorf

            I am not trying to do anything of the sort…I am asking you to back up your opinion with factual statistical evidence…

            but now—-I apologize….
            I made the tragic mistake of even engaging Barbara Morgan with this completely with her off topic post…and I even responded to you….that have nothing to do with the article….and I apologize for that.

            And I am only responding now to clarify.

            i do not, however, need a lecture from you about this being a public forum….I manage websites and content …and I broke my own rule of wading into off topic posts….I was simply trying to help with simple statistics for Barbara…

            I should not have.

            As far as your “public forum” opinion:

            People have no “right” to post at private websites nor do they have a “right” to post anything at private websites.( Especially if those posts have appeared years ago and are simply cut and pasted into dozens of websites year after year) ie Trolls….

            People have no “right” to badger or bully anyone with any post. This leads to being banned not only at sites I manage…as was just done by NM editors with many dozens of those trolls here….

            Posting here at National memo is a PRIVILEGE, yes a public forum, but a privilege none the less.

            I tell you what…I will make a suggestion to National memo editors to consider a separate article about social security in an age of aging population.

          • Andy Kinnard

            Daniel, I am seriously at a loss to even make sense of your comments. I mentioned nothing about rights, just that it was a public forum and that your obvious attempts to keep the topics of discussion rather narrow would be fruitless and wasted effort. Your level of expressed irritation at NOTHING is bizarre.

          • daniel bostdorf

            “thank you for your point of view”

          • jmprint

            I disagree with raising the SS retirement age, and this is why. Just as there are more people living longer there are also a lot of people who have worked hard and paid into the system that never got to collect because of death at an early age. Four in my family and many more that I know of. These offsets those that do live longer.

          • Andy Kinnard

            There is no guarantee that any one person will live long enough to draw from SS, and Daniel is correct that the system was engineered around a retirement age that coincided with the average life span (at the time). If life span keeps rising; so, will the SS retirement age.

          • jmprint

            THAT IS A BIG IF.

          • Andy Kinnard

            Not that big: simple extrapolation

          • jmprint

            Yet to be seen.

          • Lisztman

            “Employers expect you to retire at or before 65.” Sorry, kid, that’s because SS nominally sets retirement age at 65. If it’s changed to 66 (or 67), people will work until 66 (or 67) and employers will change their mindset accordingly. A one-year step change will not create catastrophic conditions.

            As far as the offset you mentioned, you’re right. If a 66 keeps working, the company can’t afford to hire the 23. Or 1.5 23’s — because the 23’s come cheaper. Of course, if you like this line of thinking, let’s make 55 the retirement age and we’ll open up all kinds of opportunities for the younger set…

          • Andy Kinnard

            I don’t appreciate your patronizing me with “kid”. You can suck it with that arrogance.

            As far as your weak, dithering argument, I wasn’t making some non-nuanced point about retirement age and effects of changing the SS retirement age. My point was that, at inception, there was a balance between real-world retirement age and that of SS AND that the “math” of the trust fund was based on 65 actually being higher (IIRC) than average lifespan at the time. When you muck with the balance, there are impacts. It introduces donut holes, effects in the work place, impacts on senior poverty levels, etc. Employers have NOT changed their mindset about retirement age even though SS retirement age hasn’t been 65 for years (and, no, let’s NOT play semantics on the various definitions of retirement age).

            And, check yourself on underestimating the impact of folks working one more year (from 65-66). You have your facts wrong.

          • Lisztman

            “Kid” was not patronizing. You apparently are not facing the realities of dealing with retirement, and probably not even the onset of middle age. Hence you’re young.
            “Weak, dithering, argument.” You’re complaining?

            Meanwhile, over the years, the FICA has been adjusted. It was originally 1% from the worker. Raised 3 more times over the years to the current 6.2%. That’s the major reason it has more-or-less kept pace with the increased life expectancy.

            “SS retirement age hasn’t been 65 for years.” I’d like to know where you get your data. I’ve been provided an annual statement each year for a long time, showing me the monthly “payout” depending upon when I retired. The “nominal” rate was at retirement at 65. I happened to have collected my first check at 63, and the amount was less-than-nominal. The reason they give us the different numbers is because it behooves one to decide when one wants/needs how much — and if you take it “early” (as I did) then somewhere around age 73 I’ll start collecting less in the aggregate than I would have had I waited. My choice.

            Which “mindset” is that, that employers have about retirement? Many employers value long-term (and older) employees because they know far more than the youngsters. Other employers would rather the oldsters retire because they can get the same work done for less money by younger workers. I hadn’t realized there was a common mindset — other than that employees usually want to retire somewhere in their 60’s.

            Please enlighten me as to which “facts are wrong.”

          • Andy Kinnard

            “Kid” is absolutely patronizing, and you basically confirmed that by admitting that you used it to reference my lack of perspective due to age. As for the rest, all your experience and wisdom should inform you that full benefits require you retire at 67, but you’d apparently rather engage in exactly the semantics I wrote earlier are totally unnecessary. Regardless, you haven’t raised any substantive points. Feel free to reply to me when you have something significant to write.

          • Lisztman

            Ahem. The SS retirement age has been moving on a sliding scale.

          • ThomasBonsell

            Here’s where relying on “life expectancy” hits a bump. When Social Security was first introduced in 1935, expectancy may have been 59.9 for men and 63.9 for women, but early death was also prevelant. That early death in childhood helped lower life expectancy figures without revealing other factors.

            The most important being that once a person reached 65 years of age in 1935 his/her life expectancy after that age differed little from what it is now. When you factor in the millions who died during infancy before they even got into the workforce, those deaths lowered the life averages but never contributed to the Social Security program in any way. The only life-expectacy figures that should figure into this equation are those measuring expectancy after the age of 65. Economist Paul Krugman has covered this topic quite well.

          • daniel bostdorf

            Excellant post…I will research all…thanks…

          • plc97477

            Some in the government do not want to keep working but they would like others to do so.

        • Lisztman

          Right. 60+ workers are retiring, giving up their, say, $45K jobs so they can live on $16K of Social Security, just so they can get health insurance. What’s wrong with this picture?
          PS. If 1M people quit their jobs tomorrow, that’s 1M openings to help out the 6M who are looking for work…

      • elw

        I retired early because after working for myself for 30 years I had to take a full time position to get health coverage since I could no longer afford the premiums of the individual market place. I had planned to keep working until I couldn’t anymore, but I was so miserable working for someone else, that I left as soon as I had enough cobra coverage to get me to Medicare age. If the ACA had been in place I never would have closed my consulting business. I think the biggest issue with all the stations is they hire their newscasters on their looks, not their brains or training. They all read from scripts and most do not even think about what they are saying nor can they argue their points. For the most part, journalism is dead in this Country.

        • Dominick Vila

          Mobility has been the norm in the USA for at least a century. People change jobs for a variety of reasons, among them to pursue better career opportunities, start their own business, or take care of an elderly parent. The GOP is full of it when they suggest that 2 millions jobs may be lost by 2017 as a result of Obamacare.
          Corporations are having a hard enough time recruiting qualified and experienced candidates to fill their vacancies, and offer an array of perks to recruit them and keep them on board, with healthcare insurance being one of them. Even retailers and fast food joints are unlikely to get rid of people because of Obamacare, they depend on their employees to deliver the services they offer.
          Their claim is based strictly on what Mitt Romney said last year, in their opinion half of the American people are a bunch of parasites that don’t deserve what we get or their valuable attention. I suspect Mitt understood our retort, but it is obvious that there are still enough neanderthals around to continue to voice irrational opinions that are inconsistent with reality.

          • elw

            I believe that they honestly think that they represent the majority of the Country. They all live in a very narrow world in which they surround themselves with people just like themselves.

        • plc97477

          Makes you miss the Rathers, Huntleys, and Brinkleys of yesteryear doesn’t it.

          • elw

            Yes, real journalists.

          • daniel bostdorf

            Walter Cronkite and early Barbara Walters…

    • sigrid28

      CNN is now officially Fox News-Lite, with a twist of HLN, considering how its reports are doubling down on sensationalistic stories that used to be the speciality of local news stations.

      • daniel bostdorf

        Rhetorically speaking, who watches CNN anymore….look at the ratings in the dung heap…

        • sigrid28

          I channel surf during commercials on MSNBC, just to see how the other half lives.

          • daniel bostdorf

            I do local channels for local tidbits…PBS online and tv, C Span and other channels for senate etc, surf into Maddow for thoughtful entertainment, Bill Maher….but most all my news comes from 4 or 5 online news sources progressive, surf into FOX and Drudge and see what the facists are up to, Bloomberg for business, the new Aj Jazeera to get a global perspective, and constantly monitor AP Raw news as they supply most the news anyway to everyone….

            http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/RAW?SECTION=HOME&SITE=AP

            http://america.aljazeera.com/

            and Caribbean here:

            http://www.virginvoices.vi/Home

  • daniel bostdorf

    Propaganda by the GOP is also known as a “talking point…” It is based in lies and distortions, not facts: “The GOP’s Latest Anti-Obamacare Talking Point Is Bunk.”

    The “talking points” by Karl Rove and GOP/Teaparty is nothing new. The GOP/Teaparty needs to create imaginary enemies. At all times and Obama personifies an enemy in their collective fascistic mindset.

    Professional propagandists will say and do anything. Lie Rand Paul, Cruz, et al adnaseum.

    In this case, the “enemy” is the ACA.

    Rove et al and extreme right wing media propagandists have a sycophant relation to create fear. They take advantage of the 6th grade education and racism of their fanatic followers who can think for themselves because they were not taught to.

    • latebloomingrandma

      I was visiting an elderly relative yesterday, and he had Fox News on the whole time. I thought my head was going to explode! I tried not to pay attention, but occasionally I’d look at the TV (like people look at a wreck) and in 3 hours, all I saw was –you guessed it—the evils of Obamacare, Benghazi, and the IRS and even fast and furious. Was there no news yesterday at all? Oh, and I saw some commentators with PhD after their names, I guess to give extreme credibility to their viewpoint. My relative thinks our country is doomed unless we get our Republicans back in office.
      I just started the biography on Roger Ailes “The Loudest Voice in the Room” and it is an eye opener. So many people who put their minds into the faux news propaganda world as truth are really getting played.
      Sad and dangerous for our democracy. The President was right as he pushed back on Bill O’Reilly, but he is being mocked for it.

      • daniel bostdorf

        Respectfully disagree that he is being mocked for this. The majority of rational thinking people in this country realized Obama cleaned O’Reillys propaganda clock.

        Dozens of positive reviews for Obama on the net….here are some examples:

        Read this:
        How President Obama Turned The Tables and Humiliated Roger Ailes and Fox News

        http://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/03/president-obama-turned-tables-humiliated-roger-ailes-fox-news.html

        read this:
        Face It O’Reilly, You’re Anti-Obama – Here Are 5 Reasons Why

        http://www.carbonated.tv/news/bill-oreilly-unfair-in-his-coverage-of-president-barack-obama-videos

        and
        Here is a wonderful article in Washington Post that says it all..

        A quote in summary:

        “It’s always difficult to tell whether the tail is wagging the dog over there at Fox, but I would argue that the IRS conspiracy theories and others are in large part due to O’Reilly and Fox. Neither the station nor its anchor has shown Obama or his office the respect both deserve. And that 10-minute interview was a perfect illustration of it.”

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/02/03/oreilly-outfoxed-by-obama/

        • latebloomingrandma

          Correction—my immersion into fox world has the President being mocked. Thanks for the links. My blood pressure is going down.

          • daniel bostdorf

            Its ok :-) When FOX news came onboard years ago, and during Obama election#1…I got so riled up I threw a magazine at the TV and knock over a raher expensive antique vase :-)

            Mine wasn’t worth the vent was it ? (snicker)

          • latebloomingrandma

            I have a Styrofoam brick. The first one I used it on was Newt.

          • plc97477

            Where do you find one. I would like one to save my home and sanity.

          • daniel bostdorf

            me too LOL

  • Dominick Vila

    With the possible exception of very ill people hanging on to their jobs to get the health insurance coverage they need to survive, I can’t imagine anyone quitting their job because they now have access to affordable healthcare.
    I had worked 44 years when I retired, paid taxes all my life, and never collected or applied for any government handouts. My employer sponsored benefit package included a very good health insurance plan, which I appreciated, even when they changed carriers and I had to change doctors because of financial reasons. That, however, was not the main motivation to work full time, work overtime, and make an effort to exceed expectations in order to be promoted. My top priority was to support my family, to give them everything I could afford, to see my children grow up healthy and happy, and to be able to help them go to college. The idea that 2 million people will quit because they now have subsidized medical care shows how out of touch with reality the GOP is or, perhaps more accurately, how dumb they think we are.

    • VulpineMac

      Yeah, it’s not that people will be quitting their jobs, it’s that their employers will be firing them to FORCE them onto the ACA.

      • Dominick Vila

        Do you honestly believe that corporations such as MICROSOFT, Google, Apple, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, GE, HONEYWELL and so many others who struggle to recruit and keep qualified and experienced employees will fire them so that they can be “forced” onto ACA? Some of these companies offer perks such as free vacations, daycare, have gyms and other amenities for their employees, in addition to excellent healthcare packages. The last thing in the world they would do is to fire people because ACA coverage is available. Get a grip!

        • latebloomingrandma

          You’re right. Big companies that employ highly educated people have to provide good benefits to be competitive and keep these people. My son is an HR person who works for such a company.

        • VulpineMac

          Hardly a valid argument because THEIR employees make enough money to afford insurance–most of them. On the other hand, small operators looking to save a buck can and HAVE dismissed or made employees part-time so they don’t have to cover the insurance.

          • johninPCFL

            That’s the “free market doesn’t work” argument. After all, if the employees are all just standing around and the employer can cut their hours by 25% and not impact deliveries or customer service, why haven’t they already done it, like from the beginning of time? Are the employers all just altruistic by nature?
            Or, in reality, if they choose to cut employees’ hours will they not have to hire more employees, train them, supply them with desks and chairs (or floorspace), pay higher unemployment costs, pay more local service fees (water, etc. for more bodies in the plant) just to meet production goals and customer’s requirements?
            Businesses staff to the level necessary to produce and ship product on time, no more, no less. When they cut back on employees it is because those employees are not needed. When they cut hours, it is because those hours of production are not needed.

          • VulpineMac

            No, it’s the, “members of a select political party (or two) trying to ensure something they don’t like will fail” argument.

      • jmprint

        And you know these because you are an employer, right?

        • VulpineMac

          I know these because members of my family have been directly victimized by these employers; not just one, but several. The only ones not worrying are the ones working for major non-retail corporations.

    • Gary Graves

      No one can report facts any better than Dominick, keep up the good work.

    • latebloomingrandma

      People will only go part-time for a reason. No one voluntarily goes with less pay unless they can afford it. I went part-time at age 59 because nursing was difficult with arthritis. It was doable with more days off in between. I was able to get back on my husbands health care plan. However, when I did work full time, I was a saver and could afford to reduce my hours. I don’t know if I could have done this as a single woman, though.

    • elw

      Dominick, I love when you talk about yourself, you are a very good person. It must kill the Right to hear someone like you speak progress words :)

    • Independent1

      Unfortunately, I think it’s the folks working at the CBO who are out of touch with reality these days – and the GOP is just jumping on the bandwagon of the CBO’s misguided long term projections to hype their ACA negative rhetoric.

      Just like the CBO’s projection of 7 million ACA enrollees by 3/31/14 when no one at the CBO had any more of a clue as to how Americans would react to ACA or how many states would even refuse to help get it rolling than as if they’d looked into a crystal ball. The CBO should taken on a side business of telling fortunes – that’s about what the folks there are good for.

  • VulpineMac

    Personally I’m all for the Affordable Care Act. However, the current implementation is at best extremely confusing and difficult for people to use. My wife–an IT systems engineer for a major bank–tried to help her stepmother through the process and found it convoluted and frustrating, the system telling her stepmother that she was making too much money to qualify despite working part-time hours at best with barely over minimum wage and trying to care for two dependents.

    Now, personally I’m blaming this on the state that created the web page, because it is a Republican-controlled state that chose to go ahead and generate their own. This particular state has a habit of taking all the properties of a deceased family member if they were forced to use State resources for heath care previously–even if it means putting the rest of the family out on the street.

    • Dominick Vila

      The ACA rollout has been lousy, to put it mildly, and the administration has not been doing a good job advertising the benefits of ACA and helping people join exchanges. There is something terribly wrong with what happened to your wife’s stepmother. If she is working part time, barely making a little over minimum wage, and supporting two people she is eligible for subsidies. The subsidy cutoff for individuals is around $46K, and for families it is around $96K.

      • VulpineMac

        My point exactly. The intent to provide insurance is valid, but the execution based on the website of that particular state seems intent on driving applicants away. If so, that fits right into what the anti-Obamacare political party want to see.

        • daniel bostdorf

          The “driving away” occurred initially and is on the rebound…sourung actually..

          see news here:

          Obamacare coverage enrollment hits 3 million:

          The number of people enrolled in private health insurance under
          Obamacare has soared by more than one-third in recent weeks to around 3
          million, according to government data released Friday.

          Marilyn
          Tavenner, administrator of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
          Services (CMS), announced the preliminary tally in a blog posting. She
          forecast that enrollment through new federal and state health insurance
          marketplaces would continue to grow in coming weeks as a public outreach
          campaign accelerates.

          The new data adds to evidence the Obama
          administration has turned the corner on enrollment after a botched Oct. 1
          launch. It also shows that officials might still reach their initial
          goal of signing up 7 million people for private coverage by the time
          enrollment ends on March 31.

          http://www.cnbc.com/id/101362683

          • VulpineMac

            My wife was trying to help her stepmother just Two Days Ago.

          • jmprint

            Is she going to healthcare.gov?

          • VulpineMac

            Healthcare.gov.(which state?) You get my point.

          • jmprint

            Which state does the stepmother live in.

    • sigrid28

      Federal and state benefits, like SSI coverage for individuals with disabilities, can be extremely hard to obtain. ALL applicants are refused the first time, and even those most obviously qualified must run a gauntlet that takes multiple applications, appeals, and hearings and often two years. An entire legal speciality has built up helping people qualify for SSI–the attorney collects his or her fee only when the client begins to receive benefits, because if the disabled individual applies in 2012 and does not receive benefits until 2014, he or she receives benefits from the date of application retroactively in 2014 (and can therefore pay the attorney). I think some states are making receiving tax credits and subsidies under the ACA more difficult by requiring even highly qualified applicants like your wife’s stepmother to go through a written appeal process that can take up to 60 days, even if all of the tax credit and subsidy calculators on the website said she qualified for these benefits. By all means, your wife’s stepmother should file an appeal and stick with the process like white on rice. She should copy all of her documents and keep copies to document this process start to finish, in order to inform the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and her state Department of Human Services, as well as the congresspersons who represent her state in the House and Senate.

  • FT66

    Republicans seizing on CBO Report, really tests and shows how they do think and consider their fellow Americans.
    Even if it is true jobs will be killed by ACA, how many lives will be lost incase there is no Insurance Coverage by 2017 or 2024? Jobs can be acquired again if lost, can lives be acquired again once they are gone? Folks, give this a deep thought and put it on a weighing scale, and see which Party really care about people.

  • Bill Thompson

    There is a part of the affordable healthcare act that is of great concern to me, and is one of the GOP’s major talking points that I have not heard a reasonable rebuttal too. This revolves around deductibles I know two people that have now joined the affordable healthcare act. I AM being told that they must pay forward the deductible before they all reimbursed for doctor or hospital charges. Throughout my previous experience my deductible was meet by me being charged 20% of the fee of the doctor or hospital charge until my deductible was met . According to the people that I am speaking too, and I believe them to be trustworthy. They are telling me that they must pay the deductible first before being reimbursed at whatever percentage their plan allows.
    Depending upon the seriousness of an illness this could be unaffordable too many people that I know. Two cases in point that I am speaking of are,
    A family of four that is paying $680 a month has a deductible of $12,000. Second an individual who is paying $600 per month has a deductible of $6000. I have tried to look this up and the information that is available on the website is confusing at best, and seems to confirm the information above.
    I am wondering whether I am missing something or is this in fact the case. I would appreciate anyone with knowledge of the above responding to this post.

    • elw

      Bill, you must have had special arrangements because deductibles are always met first before the insurance kicks in. Even Medicare has a deductible that must be paid before Medicare kicks in (except by those who choose to purchase supplemental insurance or choose an Advantage plan). It has been that way for decades in the private and employer market. Personally I would question the figures you are quoting on the deductibles – they do not sound right to me, since that is the type of deducible that you would get with the “junk” insurance that has been outlawed by the ACA. People get very confused about their insurance, that might be the case here but it would be hard to say unless you could read their specific policy.

    • sigrid28

      Also, Bill, I believe that until the end of March, a family or individual can drop a policy and pick up a different one–but call the healthcare.gov website number to see how to do this. It is worth a try. This family may need a health care navigator to find their way to the right policy for them.

      • Bill Thompson

        Thank you for your reply I will pass this information on to my friends.

    • charleo1

      Well, you’re right Bill, People are going to need to be more savvy
      about their health insurance, not provided by their employers. The ACA, as you most likely know, offers plans with varying premiums, and deductibles. Higher premiums have lower deductibles, and visa, versa. ACA limits the amount of out of pocket expenses at the lowest premium levels at $6,200 for an individual, and $12,500 for a family policy. Allowing insurance cos. to charge no more than 3X the premium for any pre-existing condition. But, people have to careful, they understand what the insurance plan they choose, actually counts as out of pocket toward their allowable deductions. For example, premiums are never counted. But co-pays for doctor visits, prescriptions, and tests, sometimes are. They’ll need to check. People are looking at that $12,500 deductible, and going Wow! But, the likelihood of reaching that, without a serious health event, or accident, are small. Also, that deductible starts over annually. What I think is a good way to handle that, is through a Health Savings Account. There are minimum, and maximum, contributions for individuals, and families. Contributions are deducted from from gross incomes, like an IRA, and accumulate tax free interest as well.
      There are some questions I have. For example, could one’s contribution to HSA, (health savings account,) lowering the counted gross income, help qualify for a tax subsidy, or lower one’s overall tax bracket? Also a one time roll-over from an IRA,
      to establish 1/2 of the maximum allowable total, is an option.
      So, I think when we look at handling the maximum deductions
      in this way, the, $12,500 for a family plan is not so scary. As I
      looked through the various options. There is also a tax free fund
      one may contribute to through their payroll, to pay on deductibles
      incurred for doctor visits, etc. But, it has a use it or lose it, requirement, they’ve relaxed somewhat. But, it was a turn-off
      for me. But, in a general sense, if we as Americans can’t get
      our universal coverage, which would reduces prices considerably. And for example, with 95% of the gains coming out of the recession going to the top 1%. There just isn’t much of a way, regular people are going to much of a great deal, on any of this kind of stuff. If more were put in at the top. But now, as they say, it’s just us chickens, doing what they’ll let us.

      • Bill Thompson

        Charlie once again thank you for your very informative reply I will be passing this information onto my friends, I hope it helps them some. It is still inconceivable to me that a family would be liable for a $12,000 deductible and a monthly premium before being eligible for reimbursements for the doctor and hospital fees. In my opinion this is basically the equivalent of catastrophic healthcare insurance unless something drastically goes wrong with a member of your family you are really paying doctor and hospital fees out of pocket. There definitely has to be a better and more affordable way, I would love to see universal healthcare coverage become the norm. From what I understand Vermont will most likely move in this direction this year if it is successful you may see other progressive states also moving that direction. This may be the catalyst for turning this whole convoluted fiasco around. Thanks again for your input.

        • charleo1

          Sure thing Bill. For about 20 years of my working
          life, (I’m now retired,) I was a licensed insurance
          agent. This is not easy stuff for anyone. So, please advise your friends to use all resources available to them. If they have a tax, or investment consultant, a good relationship with a banker they trust? Call the IRS. These health savings accts. are financial instruments, that may affect their tax bill, or refund. They do
          pay some tax exempt interest. How much, or
          if it’s taxable, when taken out, (probably.) Or, another product may be a better fit. But, it’s probably going to need to be fairly liquid, if they need it. Penalties for early withdrawal can cost
          principal, as you know. I don’t know about these navigators, but your friends must be sure they completely understand what out of pocket expenses are counted aganist that max. deductible. This varies by State, and was one of
          those many insurance co. victories, I’m sure that was necessary to get some Senator’s vital vote in the final passage of the law. The state of their health is important. Buying insurance is a bet that you’ll need it. Choosing a low premium /high deduct. is betting you probably won’t. If they smoke, quitting will probably save them enough to buy a new car every year. Ironically, for all the caterwauling about a gov. takeover. The law actually changes very little of the math that determines the costs paid for insuring a
          person aganist what could be a bill twice the size of the average mortgage. And the bill, if it works wonderfully, will not reduce the potential obligation of the insured. Only slow the rate at which that obligation has been increasing. Primarily by reducing the number of defaults on the debt to providers, they now make up for, by inflating the bills for the paying customers, like insurance cos. and the govn’t. And, since the law also increases the probability of claims, by removing the exclusion of those who are very likely to create huge claims in the near future. The necessity of large numbers of young, healthy people signing up, is vital to making the the entire thing work out mathematically. It’s a
          huge gamble politically for Democrats. Which
          have essentially bet the farm on the assumption
          that younger people, many without assets to
          protect from a potentially large debt. Will buy in
          anyway, for $96. to $175. a month, because it’s
          the responsible thing to do to. So, they’ll forgo
          buying the latest gadget, and purchase health
          insurance. Which was not my experience as an
          agent. But, I guess we’ll find out. Keep Posting
          Bill. You always tell me something I didn’t know,
          hadn’t thought of, or bring a great perspective
          to the subject. It’s why I’m one of your loyal
          followers on Disquis.

    • daniel bostdorf
      • Bill Thompson

        Thank you for your input the articles were very informative

    • johninPCFL

      I had a catastrophic care package that also had a high deductible ($10k), and that plan was also front-loaded on that deductible (i.e. the whole deductible was mine to pay first, then the coverage began to pay.) I’ve had other plans with deductibles structured as a percentage of the cost, as you said.
      I believe that the handling of the deductible is (as has aways been the case) up to the insurance company and the buyer must choose whichever option works for them. In states with limited company coverage (some states have only two companies), the inscos write their own ticket, and the buyers are pretty screwed.

  • ChristoD

    What I predict will happen is that EMPLOYERS will indeed cut back on hours to 30 from 40 simply to get the Fed/taxpayer to foot the ACA bill rather than them doing it. What makes it even more infuriating is that the TP’ers and their lemmings will say ‘I told you so’ instead of pushing EMPLOYERS to knock it off and carry their benefits weight. Pathetic. As for the ‘get off your ass and get a job’ BS mantra of the TP’ers, I say ‘grow up EMPLOYERS and act your age and do what is right, you dole takers’.

    • charleo1

      Okay, you’re probably right, to some extent, at first. But look at it this way. Employers are motivated to hire by only one precept.
      They need the help. I think we make a mistake, when we try to
      attach any other motivation to employer’s hiring practices. That
      they hire more because employees work cheaper, or that now
      they are required to contribute in a small way to the overall costs
      of healthcare we’re all bearing to some extent. But what hasn’t changed, is an employee that’s not needed, is too expensive at
      any cost. What both employee, and employer need right now is
      for business to pick up! And when it does, there probably won’t
      be four or five applicants show up for one job. And hopefully that
      will translate into more money for everyone all around. The boss
      then might find, if a good health plan comes with the job, he can
      attract the sharper workers, and his business improves, he makes
      more money, and we all win! That’s what I think we need to be
      concentrating on. And crossing our fingers, never hurts. Right?

  • kingartie1

    And here you have a key component of the rotting rabid ridiculous retarded rancid Republican’t objections to Obamacare. ““Obamacare alters the employer-employee relationship in a way that empowers employees.”

    Social and employment mobility. If Mrs. Jones the mostly-conservative always-votes Repub mother of two has remained at her underpaid, boring, stifling, unfulfilling job for five years too long only because she gets health care benefits, guess what? C ya. Not only that–here’s the one that gives Cantor & Co. constipation–now she may reward her liberators by being more inclined to vote for the candidates whose party offered a way out of her dull-ass job. So now she may be able to open that flower shop she’s always wanted, or work a more worthwhile job for less money and/or to have more time for her home or children or her own health and fitness. Gee, why in hell would the Republican’ts, who are always screaming about freedom like it was God-sent repellant to cannibal extraterrestrial invasion, find hundreds of thousands of such cases objectionable?

  • elw

    As always the GOP twists information to fit their needs. Personally, as a former owner of a very small healthcare consulting company, I can see why some people will now choose to work less hours or go to part-time. For the close to thirty years I was self-employed I basically purchased my own health coverage from the individual market. It worked well for me until I turned 50, then suddenly, my premium started increasing by hundreds of dollars every year until I could no longer afford coverage. At first I tried finding part-time work that would help me pay for it, but that began to hurt my business, because it cut into my marketing time so business slowed down. Although it pained me deeply I finally took a full time position simply because I was concerned about not have health coverage as I grew older. I was miserable, I hated working in the restrictive atmosphere of the corporate world and would have much preferred to have continued to run my own consulting business and could of if the ACA had been in place. I know many people who continue to work where they are or work more hours than they want to simply because they need the health care coverage. This new found freedom to be able to get a basic need like health care coverage that is not connected to an employer will give the creative and more imaginative people in this society the chance to use their creative powers in new ways. The main lesson I learn while I was working in the corporate world is they squash creativity and independent thinking. Releasing that in the individuals who have it can only help this Country, not hurt.

  • charleo1

    The headline should read: Millions unshackled from employer provided
    healthcare, tell boss to, “shove it!” It’s true, while employers have been
    enjoying a glut of available, and desperate labor. Driving wages down
    to historic lows. The ability of individuals to obtain healthcare, regardless
    of pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes, or having an asthmatic child.
    A common childhood malady Are finally getting their first legitimate shot
    at starting their own businesses, being their own bosses, finally getting
    that quality time with their families. And their first real opportunity in their
    lives, of making their version of the American dream, come true!
    Freedom, Liberty ! Being the Captain of your own ship! Isn’t that what
    this is supposed to all about?

    • daniel bostdorf

      Charleo1

      Finally the AP raw news service gets it right:

      headline

      FACT CHECK: Anti-Obamacare chorus is off key

      excerpt

      “…..But some aren’t telling it straight. The analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts the law will give several million people an opportunity to work less or not at all, because they won’t be stuck in jobs just for the sake of keeping the health insurance they get from employers. To some Republicans, that amounts to “wreaking havoc on working families,” “dire consequencesfor workers” and a shower of pink slips across the land –

      “….conclusions unsupported by the report.”

      read here

      http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-02-05-20-44-46

      • charleo1

        Well, thank you! I really don’t listen to MSNBC all day.
        But, every time I caught a few minutes there was another expert, or political analyst wringing their hands over the CBO report. And how all that Americans were going to hear in an election year, was ObamaCare is going to cost, 2 million jobs. Well, there goes the Senate, one chirped. The last thing the Democrats need in these Right leaning States, another agreed, all gloom, and doom. I thought, well, their corporate side is sure showing today. I can just hear these human resource officers now./ If they can buy their own health insurance, and can’t be turned down. How are we ever going to be able to chain our employees to their desks? Cut their vacation time, or make them work weekends. If we can’t stop this, we may have to resort to talking to them like they were people, and actually paying them, to get them to stay!

  • howa4x

    Did anyone see the Republican alternative to the ACA? Hatch was on the airwaves and the plan would tax health benefits you get for work. Also if you lost your insurance you wouldn’t be able to get it back. There is some patient protection but no free preventative screenings and no contraception coverage at all. They say they want to give control back to the doctor but really it for the insurance companies. What a surprise!! Actually that is the biggest myth the republicans ever told about the ACA. Every insurance plan has a gate keeper that you have to clear prior to getting an expensive medical procedure. Although a doctor may order it a company can block it if they feel it is not medically necessary so there had always been someone between you and your doctor.
    You are all correct I saw that interview. Just means that people don’t have to stay on crappy jobs just for insurance

  • daniel bostdorf

    Top 16 myths about the health care law…and this list as the artcle states isn’t the last of the myth making by GOP:

    1. The health care law rations care, like systems in Canada and Great Britain. False.

    Florida Gov. Rick Scott, July 2, 2012, in an interview on Fox News

    The health care law is not socialized medicine. Instead, it leaves in
    place the private health care system that follows free market
    principles. The law does put more regulations on health insurance
    companies. It also fines most large employers who fail to provide
    insurance for their employees, and it requires all individuals to have
    health insurance. This is unlike the systems in either Britain or
    Canada. In Britain, doctors are employees of the government, while in
    Canada, the government pays most medical bills as part of a single-payer
    system. The U.S. health care law has neither of those features.
    PolitiFact has rated this claim and others like it False.

    2. The health care law has “death panels.” Pants on Fire.

    Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor, Aug. 7, 2009, in a message posted on Facebook

    Back in 2009, it was a popular talking point to claim that the health
    care law had “death panels” to determine if individuals are worthy of
    receiving health care coverage. The claim was widely debunked and named
    PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year. The talking point started in reaction to
    an idea for Medicare, that the Medicare program for seniors should
    specifically cover doctor appointments for seniors who wanted to discuss
    do-not-resuscitate orders, end-of-life directives and living wills. The
    visits would have been completely optional and only for people who
    wanted the appointments. After controversy, the provision was dropped
    from the final legislation. We rated the “death panels” claim Pants on Fire.

    3. Muslims are exempt from the health care law. Pants on Fire.

    Chain email, May 29, 2013

    A widely circulated chain email claims that the word “dhimmitude” is
    on page 107 of the health care law, and it means Muslims will be exempt.
    Actually, the health care law does not include the word
    “dhimmitude” (a recently coined word that seems to refer to non-Muslims
    under Muslim rule). Also, the health care law doesn’t exempt Muslims.
    There is a “religious conscience exemption,” but it applies to groups
    that disavow all forms of insurance, including Social Security. Muslim
    groups have supported the Affordable Care Act. We rated the chain
    email’s claim Pants on Fire.

    4. The IRS is going to be “in charge” of “a huge national
    database” on health care that will include Americans’ “personal,
    intimate, most close-to-the-vest-secrets.” Pants on Fire.

    U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., May 15, 2013, in an interview on Fox News

    The Internal Revenue Service does have a role to play as part of the
    health care law, but it’s not the role suggested here. If you buy
    insurance on the marketplace and you get a subsidy, officials will check
    tax records to make sure you qualify. That communication with the IRS
    happens via a data hub that’s also connected to the U.S. Department of
    Health and Human Services. It’s important to note, though, that the hub
    isn’t a database. The IRS isn’t running it. And it doesn’t include
    “intimate” health data. The hub is for signing up for health insurance,
    not for storing medical records. We rated the claim Pants on Fire.

    5. Congress is exempt from Obamacare. False.

    Chain email, Jan. 6, 2013

    Even a few sitting lawmakers have repeated this claim, but it’s not
    true. Congress is not exempt from Obamacare. Like everyone else,
    lawmakers are required to have health insurance. They’re also required
    to buy insurance through the marketplaces. The idea is to have lawmakers
    and their staff buy insurance the same way their uninsured constituents
    would so they understand what their constituents have to deal with.
    Most Americans who already get insurance through work are left alone
    under the law; members of Congress have insurance through work but are
    treated differently in this regard. Recently, a rule was added so that
    lawmakers’ could keep the traditional employer contribution to their
    coverage. But they weren’t exempt from requirements that other Americans
    face. We rated this claim False.

    6. Under Obamacare, people who “have a doctor they’ve been seeing for the last 15 or 20 years, they won’t be able to keep going to that doctor.” Mostly False.

    U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., July 31, 2013 in a Fox News interview

    Some have suggested that Obamacare would interfere with
    doctor-patient relationships. Actually, there’s no more interference
    than what existed before Obamacare. Right now, patients can lose access
    to their doctors when their insurance policies change. This typically
    happens when employers switch plans or when workers switch (or lose)
    jobs. Under Obamacare, some patients who buy health insurance through
    the marketplace could lose access to their current doctor, but it’s
    difficult to predict how many. And it would be because they have a new
    insurance plan. We rated this claim Mostly False.

    7. The health care law is a “government takeover” of health care.

    U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, Feb. 20, 2010, in a speech to Pinellas County Republicans.

    “Government takeover” conjures a European approach where the
    government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But
    the law Congress passed relies largely on the free market. It’s true
    that the law significantly increases government regulation of health
    insurers. But it is, at its heart, a system that relies on private
    companies and the free market. The majority of Americans will continue
    to get coverage from private insurers. We rated the claim Pants on Fire.

    8. “All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.”

    Chain email, July 28, 2009

    The health care law does not provide free health care services to
    anyone, and especially not to people in the United States illegally.
    Illegal immigrants may not enroll in Medicaid, nor are they eligible to
    shop on the marketplace for health insurance. Permanent legal residents
    are eligible for health insurance subsidies on the marketplace, as are
    U.S. citizens. Current law says that hospital emergency rooms must
    stabilize illegal immigrants with medical emergencies, but that law
    predates Obamacare.

    9. Because of Obamacare, health care premiums have “gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.” False.

    President Barack Obama, Oct. 3, 2012, in a presidential debate

    The historical data for health care premiums only goes back 14 years;
    there’s no evidence to support the idea that premium increases are at a
    50-year low. Overall health care costs have slowed down, but even
    there, Obama exaggerated the impact of his health care law. Experts say
    slowing costs are due to a variety of reasons, including the recent
    recession. Giving all the credit to the new law overstates the case. We
    rated the statement False.

    10. Under Obamacare, “75 percent of small businesses now say they are going to be forced to either fire workers or cut their hours.”

    U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., July 25, 2013 in a FoxNews.com op-ed

    Suggestions that business are laying off workers because of the
    health care law have so far proven to be largely unfounded. Most small
    businesses — those with fewer than 50 employees — do not have to
    provide health insurance to their employees. (In fact, some very small
    businesses with fewer than 25 employees may qualify for tax credits
    under the law.) The claim here that 75 percent of small business were
    reducing their workforce was based on a misreading of a study from the
    U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The study actually found that less than 10
    percent of small businesses said they will be forced to reduce their
    workforce or cut hours. We rated the claim Pants on Fire.

    11. “At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment” under the health law.

    Chain email, June 3, 2013

    Some misinformation about the health care law has been specifically
    aimed at seniors, even though the law largely leaves the Medicare
    program alone. This particular claim, that older cancer patients will go
    without treatment, is wrong on several levels. For one thing, the
    health care law didn’t make changes to patient benefits in the Medicare
    program. Cancer treatment will still be covered by Medicare. Also, there
    are no changes in the law aimed at people 76 or older. This claim seems
    to have been invented out of whole cloth as a scare tactic. We rated it
    Pants on Fire.

    12. The health care law includes “a 3.8% sales tax” on “all real estate transactions.”

    Chain email, July 24, 2012

    An anonymous chain email claims that the health care law puts a 3.8
    percent tax on home sales. This is not correct. The law does include new
    taxes, but the taxes are primarily on the health care industry and on
    investment income for the wealthy. For middle-class homeowners, there
    are long-standing tax exemptions on the profits from home sales, and the
    health care law didn’t change them. We rated this statement Pants on Fire.

    13. “Obamacare is . . . the largest tax increase in the history of the world.”

    Rush Limbaugh, June 28, 2012, on his radio show

    Radio host Rush Limbaugh and others have claimed the health care law
    includes historically high tax increases. While there are new taxes in
    the health care law — representing the first significant federal tax
    increases since 1993 — they are not the largest increases in the
    history of the United States, much less the world. When accounting for
    the size of the overall economy, tax increases signed into law by
    Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were larger than the tax
    increases in the health law. We rated this statement Pants on Fire.

    14. A “hidden” provision in the health care law taxes sporting goods as medical devices.

    Chain email, June 12, 2013

    A chain email claims that common sporting goods equipment — fishing
    rods, outboard motors, tackle boxes — will be taxed at 2.3 percent
    under Obamacare. There is a 2.3 percent tax in the law, but it applies
    to medical devices, not sports equipment. Also, the medical devices tax
    applies to manufacturers and makers, not consumers. This chain email
    seems to stem from a mistake made at Cabela’s, a Nebraska-based retail
    store that sells sporting goods. At the beginning of 2013, Cabela’s
    accidentally started taxing its sales and labeling it a medical excise
    tax. But that move was in error, and the company quickly reversed itself
    the same day. As for the chain email, we rate its claim Pants on Fire!

    15. Obamacare will question your sex life.

    Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, Sept. 15, 2013, in an op-ed in the New York Post

    In the op-ed, McCaughey claimed the law pressures doctors into asking
    about people’s sex lives and recording those answer in electronic
    health records. Actually, it was the economic stimulus that created
    incentives for doctors to move to electronic health records. And, none
    of the criteria require questions about people’s sex lives. Instead,
    doctors are asked to record standard diagnostic criteria like vital
    signs, diagnoses, medications and the like. Privacy advocates do have
    concerns about electronic health records, but it’s not about people
    getting asked embarrassing questions about their sex lives. We rated
    this claim Pants on Fire!

    16. An Obamacare provision will allow “forced home inspections” by government agents.

    Bloggers, Aug. 15, 2013

    State lawmakers in South Carolina got this one going by claiming they
    were concerned that the health care law allowed forced home
    inspections. People can relax, though: There are no forced home
    inspections. What got people concerned is an optional home health care
    program that sends nurses on house calls to the homes of pregnant, poor
    women. The idea is that the nurses will check on the moms and offer
    prenatal advice in a comfortable environment. And the program is not
    mandatory.

    more here:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/

  • daniel bostdorf

    Finally the AP raw news service gets it right:
    headline

    FACT CHECK: Anti-Obamacare chorus is off key

    excerpt

    “…..But some aren’t telling it straight. The analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts the law will give several million people an opportunity to work less or not at all, because they won’t be stuck in jobs just for the sake of keeping the health insurance they get from employers. To some Republicans, that amounts to “wreaking havoc on working families,” “dire consequencesfor workers” and a shower of pink slips across the land –

    “….conclusions unsupported by the report.”

    read here

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-02-05-20-44-46

  • daniel bostdorf

    Democracy now exposes it:

    Job Killer? How Media Spin Got Obamacare Wrong — and Why Single-Payer Could Cure Its Actual Flaws

    http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/6/job_killer_how_media_spin_got

  • charles king

    People, maintain your (Critical Thinking) and You will be able to unfold any of the voices that are shouting in your ear. What ? the hell is going on when you have People telling you ” Not To hook-up with Obamacare ” Why? that is the question to ask of these people. Who? are these Representives Which? can’t make up their minds about Unemployment in our country. I think they are Republicans Why? are these Republicans doing these negatives things against the people, and Why don’t the People Vote these Representives out of the Congress. It is up to You the People to maintain your Democracy, Do Not let these (Douthers) WHO? are the Tea party, the Republicans’, the Plutocracts etc. Why? are these people so negative about your position , in your own country. Thank You are the magic words in my book. I Love Ya All. Check-up on Charter schools using Public Schools MONIES. Mr. C. E. KING

    • daniel bostdorf

      I agree with this you state: “it is up to You the People to maintain your Democracy,”

scroll to top